Nuclear power, why we can’t give it up despite its dangers!

This article addresses the issue of unreliable power supply in South Korea and the importance of nuclear power. It discusses the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, the concerns of its opponents, and explains why nuclear power is essential for South Korea.

 

A long time ago, on September 15, 2011, in South Korea, without warning, the electricity exchange rotationally cut off the power being transmitted to various parts of the country. The sudden outage inconvenienced citizens, and after much confusion, the government explained that the move was to prevent a massive “blackout.” In fact, in 2003, the eastern United States experienced the worst blackout in history: for three days, seven U.S. states and one Canadian province were completely blacked out, leaving 50 million people inconvenienced and terrified as they waited for the power to return, and causing $6 billion in economic losses. Imagine being without electricity for three days. If it’s summer, the food in your refrigerator will quickly spoil, and you won’t be able to make phone calls to check on the well-being of your loved ones. Your TV and radio wouldn’t work either, and you’d live in fear, not knowing what was happening.
In South Korea, unreliable power supplies still pose the potential for large-scale power outages. Spikes in electricity usage, especially during summer heat waves or winter cold snaps, put a lot of strain on the grid, and the risk of large-scale power outages increases as these events recur. Unreliable power supply can also have a serious impact on industry. Key elements of the modern economy, such as large-scale factory shutdowns, data center outages, and e-commerce, can be severely impacted by power outages. This, in turn, can have a negative ripple effect throughout a country’s economy.
Back in 2011, KEPCO averted a similar blackout by hastily cycling power to some areas when electricity usage exceeded supply. Even after such a major incident, KEPCO is walking a tightrope that could lead to a repeat blackout in the summer or winter when power usage is high. As electricity usage continues to grow, new or improved power plants are needed to prevent disasters like blackouts. Currently, coal-fired power plants account for 35.5% of all electricity generation, followed by nuclear power plants at 29.5%. Other sources include gas and oil-fired generation, hydroelectricity, and alternative energy, but nuclear power is by far the largest. Despite this large share, nuclear power has gotten a lot of negative publicity lately. What is nuclear power and what’s the problem?
Nuclear power is a method of generating electricity that utilizes Einstein’s formula E=mc^2, which states that mass equals energy. Nuclear power typically uses uranium, but heavy elements like uranium are unstable and decay easily. When neutrons, the particles that make up an atom, are bombarded by unstable uranium, the atom splits into two or three smaller elements, neutrons, and heat energy. New neutrons can then split other uranium, creating a cascade of energy. The total mass of the particles is less than the initial state, and this mass deficit (m) becomes thermal energy (E), which turns the water into steam. This steam is used to turn a turbine to generate electricity, which is how nuclear power works. Fossil power also works by burning coal to make steam and turn a turbine, but in Einstein’s formula, c^2 is a very large number. By fissioning a very small amount of uranium, you can get a very large amount of energy. In fact, the amount of energy that can be obtained by completely fissioning one gram of uranium is equivalent to the amount of energy that can be obtained by burning three tons of coal.
But the biggest problem with nuclear power is its danger. The atomic bomb that ended World War II was built on the same principle; the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear explosion left Chernobyl a ghost town for 28 years; and in 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake, the worst natural disaster in history, triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Three reactors exploded, severely contaminating the ocean and atmosphere with radioactivity. The destructive power of the explosions isn’t the only reason nuclear power is dangerous: the aforementioned radioactivity means that radioactive elements scatter and continue to emit radiation. Radiation is an electromagnetic wave with a very short wavelength that can penetrate the human body and destroy the molecular structure of living things, especially DNA, making it extremely dangerous. This dangerous accident in neighboring Japan has led to widespread opposition to building and maintaining nuclear power plants in Korea.
The fear that “if a nuclear power plant is damaged by a disaster like the Fukushima accident, something like the Fukushima accident will happen in Korea” is driving the opposition. In addition, the recent increase in extreme weather events due to climate change has raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants from natural disasters. With disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, and floods becoming more powerful, it has been pointed out that additional safety measures and facility improvements are essential for the continued safety of nuclear power plants.
However, more than a month after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the South Korean government announced that it would not change its plans to build additional nuclear power plants. The government is even pushing to build a nuclear power plant in Samcheok, where a whopping 85% of residents voted against it in a recent referendum. Nuclear energy is important enough that the government is pushing ahead with construction despite the backlash from residents. I am in favor of maintaining and building more nuclear power plants. The benefits of nuclear energy are too great to abandon it because of the unlikely risks. Since thermal power makes up a large portion of Japan’s electricity production, let’s compare it to nuclear power to see why we can’t abandon nuclear power.
First, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than thermal power. Thermal power plants are the mainstay of electricity production because the technology is simple and construction is relatively easy. Thermal power plants utilize heat from burning coal, which emits a lot of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. An oil-fired power plant requires 1.5 million tons of oil per year to run a 1 million kW plant, which, unsurprisingly, produces a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. Thermal power plants account for 24% of Korea’s total carbon dioxide emissions. There have been recent efforts to minimize gas emissions by building carbon capture facilities at thermal power plants, but the technology is still very limited and the captured gas is usually repurposed or buried underground, which is inefficient and doesn’t eliminate all emissions because it’s expensive to get rid of the gas as a byproduct of generating electricity. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a clean energy source with virtually no gas emissions. Thermal power produces 991 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, while nuclear power produces only 10 grams. While no gases are emitted during the fuel combustion process, small amounts are emitted during operation and disposal. This makes nuclear power a sustainable energy source that can be used without worrying about global warming.
The second advantage is affordability. It is not only economical in terms of low cost and high efficiency, but also favorable in terms of Korea’s resource environment and exportability. As mentioned earlier, thermal power generation requires a lot of fuel. According to Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, in 2011, Korea imported $16.7 billion in lignite and $17.7 billion in anthracite coal out of a total energy import bill of $172.8 billion, while uranium was only $8.1 billion. Nevertheless, KHNP generated 31.3% of its electricity from nuclear power that year. This is due to the low cost of raw materials and high cost of other technical aspects of nuclear power plants. While the technical costs do not require foreign capital, the raw materials are entirely imported. Thermal power generation is vulnerable to international politics because most of the cost is spent on importing raw materials. Current reserves of fossil fuels are estimated to be 40 years for oil, 60 years for natural gas, and 230 years for coal. Coal, the most abundant remaining fuel, is becoming increasingly obsolete due to its high environmental pollution, and dwindling resources and fluctuating oil prices make thermal power generation highly unstable. However, uranium, which is used in nuclear power, is evenly distributed around the world and has large reserves, and when reprocessed and used, is expected to last for about 3,600 years, providing a steady supply at a stable price.
South Korea, a resource-poor country, began developing nuclear power to meet its electricity needs in the 70s, which is more technology-intensive than resource-intensive. Nuclear power is an important part of South Korea’s energy independence. Today, South Korea’s nuclear power generation technology ranks fifth in the world. Since South Korea cannot export resources, exporting nuclear technology is the only way it can export energy. Starting with technical support for the operation and maintenance of the Guangdong Nuclear Power Plant in China in 1993, the country signed a contract to build four Korean nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates in 2009, an achievement made all the more valuable because the contract was won in competition with France, another nuclear powerhouse. Since then, demand for power plant construction has been increasing overseas, and nuclear technology exports are expected to play a large role in earning foreign currency.
Despite these advantages, opponents of nuclear power are concerned about safety. They argue that they are a ticking time bomb that could go off at any moment due to mismanagement like Chernobyl or a natural disaster like Fukushima. But I think the saying “I wouldn’t dip my bowels in maggots” applies to this situation as well. Sure, Chernobyl and Fukushima weren’t “maggots,” but they were both Class 7 accidents, the highest classification, which has only happened twice in the history of nuclear power plants. There hasn’t been a major disaster due to mismanagement since Chernobyl, and Korea doesn’t have an unstable geology like Japan, so the current level of seismic design is sufficient to prevent accidents. Safety measures have been stepped up, especially since Fukushima. The government invested KRW 1 trillion from 2011 to 2015 to improve safety, and 39 out of 56 improvement measures have been implemented to date. KHNP was recently awarded a gold medal for the second year in a row at the International Competition for Quality Control (ICQCC), recognizing its significant contribution to safety by dramatically reducing response times to virtual emergencies at the plant. Korea’s nuclear power plant safety is recognized worldwide. Radiation is not a major concern unless there is an accident. Expressed in sieverts (Sv), a unit of radiation exposure, the amount of radiation a person receives in one year in natural conditions without an accident is 2.4 millisieverts (mSv). And according to the Atomic Energy Act, exposure to less than 1 mSv for an additional year is allowed. These figures come from surveys conducted by the United Nations Scientific Committee on Radiation on victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and are scientifically reliable. You can check real-time radiation levels in different parts of the country on the National Environmental Radiation Automated Monitoring Network website. If you check near a nuclear power plant that is currently operating normally, you can easily see that the radiation levels are not high compared to other areas, around 120 millisieverts per hour. In fact, it’s much lower than in Seoul, so it’s an exaggeration to say that people are against nuclear power because of the risk of an accident or radiation leak.
Others suggest alternative energy sources that pose little risk. Solar, wind, ocean, and bioenergy are among the most promising alternatives that don’t emit greenhouse gases. However, they are not yet ready to replace nuclear power, which is technically much more efficient or suitable for South Korea’s environment. Solar energy is the most popular because it is pollution-free and can be used indefinitely. However, South Korea doesn’t get much sunshine and solar cells are only about 30 W/m^2 efficient, so it would take 10 million square kilometers of solar cells to power a 950 MW nuclear power plant. That might be fine for home use, but it’s far from enough to power the entire country. The same goes for wind power. Wind power is cheap to install and utilizes the wind, an inexhaustible source of energy, but it’s simply not practical to operate in Korea. Currently, wind turbines can be found all over Jeju Island, but their low output means that they only cover a small fraction of the island’s electricity usage. There is currently a push to develop and install larger wind turbines in the 3MW class, but Korea’s lack of access to the sea means that they are expected to be very inefficient compared to Europe’s 6562MW offshore wind farms spanning 11 countries. Other power generation methods have potential, but are still underdeveloped or limited, rarely used, and far less efficient. In the end, nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel generation for now.
So far, we’ve seen why South Korea relies on nuclear power for its electricity supply. Even now, with electricity consumption threatening to exceed supply, the government is looking at maintaining power plants and building new ones as needed. And of all the ways to generate electricity, nuclear power is the most suitable. First of all, thermal power generation produces high greenhouse gas emissions, while nuclear power generation produces low greenhouse gas emissions, making it a very attractive resource for sustainable development as the world seeks to limit carbon emissions. Second, nuclear power has great economic potential. Fossil fuels are a potentially dangerous resource for countries that are absolutely scarce and almost entirely dependent on foreign sources. But the uranium used in nuclear power is abundant and evenly distributed around the world, so there is no risk of it being weaponized, and the resources needed to generate it are very affordable. It is a technology-intensive power generation. South Korea has some of the world’s most advanced nuclear power generation technology. Nuclear power technology has also become an export item, following the award of a nuclear power plant to the United Arab Emirates in 2009. Despite these irrefutable advantages, many people oppose nuclear power, citing the risk of accidents and the existence of other alternatives. However, nuclear power plant accidents are extremely rare and the increased safety measures since the Fukushima accident have made it a safer means of generating electricity. In addition, South Korea’s nuclear safety technology is recognized worldwide, so it would be irrational to abandon nuclear power with its many advantages. The alternative energy sources that are currently gaining the most attention are solar and wind power, which are not considered to be responsible for South Korea’s power supply from an environmental and technical perspective. Therefore, nuclear power is an energy source with unlimited potential that South Korea cannot afford to give up. I look forward to the day when the safety of nuclear energy is proven enough to silence the naysayers.